Freedomain Radio

Actually, the debate was over because the person wouldn't give an example of what they were talking about.

What would change your mind about Ron Paul? 

Charlie:

Actually, the debate was over because the person wouldn't give an example of what they were talking about.

What would change your mind about Ron Paul? 

Because Dtomboy and I can't provide examples of governments being bought down because of non-use of their services, Stef is off the hook for providing evidence of a government being brought down through lack of a voting public?  I don't follow that line of reasoning.

 Probably nothing.  What would change your mind about him?

Wilheld, clearly you find me objectionable and hypocritical, inconsistent and evasive etc etc.

You're welcome to your opinion, naturally. Of course, I'm not going to pay for the expression of your negative opinions of me.

So please stop posting here.

Thanks!

Stefan Molyneux:

Wilheld, clearly you find me objectionable and hypocritical, inconsistent and evasive etc etc.

You're welcome to your opinion, naturally. Of course, I'm not going to pay for the expression of your negative opinions of me.

So please stop posting here.

Thanks!

Wow, this is really getting weird.  I haven't real hardly anything in this thread, but I did see that this guy had some questions I was also interested in learning more from.  I liked reading threads with him involved, because it was helping me to understand thoughts and ideas from those who hang out here.  I guess that means I often already had similar questions.

But now Stef is kicking him off?  I don't understand.  Every podcast I've listened to so far Stef is happily encouraging people to come and discuss things, and it sounded to me like that included people that didn't agree with something he said, and wanted to at least have an interesting discussion about it.

I certainly understand the thought process and feelings about not wanting to pay for someone to say they disagree with you, but Stef, you clearly invite people to do so.  And in other forums, often I have disagreed with someone, but in the end, I always learn something valuable, even if we never get to the point of agreeing.  It's okay not to agree, isn't it?

I don't understand.  Why have a forum if people can't discuss, debate, and yes disagree sometimes?  I didn't read the whole thread, but it didn't look to me like this guy did anything particularly insulting to Stef except disagree.  Am I wrong?  This board is nothing like I imagined it would be.  But I will admit I have not been here long, so maybe I just don't "get" it yet?

If this wilheld guy had donated money, would he have been able to stay and state his views and ask his questions?  Again, I don't blame Stef for not wanting to pay to hear people disagree, but then again he could have easily set up a forum using one of the free methods such as yahoo groups and kept the website for his other purposes.

Just continuing to try and understand.

Debbie

cogito:

From what I can see he was banned for a very good reason, that he seemed to spend a large amount of his time telling people how bad Stef was.It wasn't because he was disagreeing, it was because he was slandering. Stef let him carry on with that malarkey a lot longer that I probably would have. Seriously, look over his posts. Let me know what you think.

I looked over the last several pages of this thread.  Looks like he got irritated when he didn't get his questions answered?  Is there another topic where he did more than what he did here?  What did he say that you would define as slander?